This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

If Armstrong finds that Ford violated the Municipal Elections Act, the city’s compliance audit committee, composed of three experts in elections law, could either do nothing or pursue the possibility of non-criminal charges. Ford would face potential penalties including a fine of up to $25,000, removal from office, and — highly unlikely — prison time.

If the committee voted to proceed with the case, a special prosecutor would make the ultimate decision about whether there was sufficient evidence to go to trial. Other municipalities have hired lawyers in private practice to serve as their special prosecutors.

The case was sparked by a 2011 complaint filed by Max Reed, a lawyer, and Adam Chaleff-Freudenthaler, a labour relations professional, left-leaning activist and former library board vice-chair. Both men were also involved in the conflict of interest lawsuit against Ford, though they have not spoken publicly about their roles.

Among other allegations, they argue that the Ford campaign breached the Municipal Elections Act by exceeding the legal spending limit by $156,384 and by allowing a Ford family company to pay for $77,722 in campaign expenses. The campaign repaid the company a year later without interest; corporate donations, and loans from companies that are not recognized lending institutions, are illegal.

The committee decided in June not to pursue charges against unsuccessful council candidate Gus Cusimano, even though Armstrong’s audit found several apparent breaches of the law.

Chaleff-Freudenthaler said he has a “very high expectation” that the committee will vote to pursue Ford if the audit substantiates the allegations about the spending limit and the payments from the family company.

“I think the committee set a reasonable precedent for only pursuing cases that have seriously compromised our elections. And we would hope that they maintain that direction — we’re not looking to move forward on anything that is petty or didn’t really impact the way that the election played out,” he said.

Ford initially appealed the committee’s decision to order an audit, then dropped the appeal in April. Prior to April, his lawyer said simply that he complied with the law; Ford was less definitive in his April statement, saying, “Everything during the campaign was done in good faith with the intention of complying fully with election law.”

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com